If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

Originally Posted by Chip R

Dunn, Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Jr. all the wrong players?

Dunn and Arroyo, I'm going to say no. Junior... no one saw that coming, and it is unfortunate how it played out. Harang... I'm still not sure. Cordero - a team this bad has no need to spend so much money on a pitcher to close out ball games. If they were building to win, it'd make sense, but it doesn't look like they were. They weren't an all-star closer away from contending, because Weathers wasn't that bad.

Now, let's talk Casey, Larkin, Milton, Lincoln...

My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

Originally Posted by savafan

Dunn and Arroyo, I'm going to say no. Junior... no one saw that coming, and it is unfortunate how it played out. Harang... I'm still not sure. Cordero - a team this bad has no need to spend so much money on a pitcher to close out ball games. If they were building to win, it'd make sense, but it doesn't look like they were. They weren't an all-star closer away from contending, because Weathers wasn't that bad.

Now, let's talk Casey, Larkin, Milton, Lincoln...

But my point is that while you may believe Dunn and Arroyo were good signings, many people think they weren't no matter how well they have performed. If they sign Votto to a long term deal, rest assured there will be those that will say that someone like Alonso could give the same production for a lower cost.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

Originally Posted by Chip R

Dunn, Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Jr. all the wrong players?

I see your point. People are going to complain.

IMO, all those were good signings. Good value.

We can say a team like the Reds does not need a 12 million dollar closer. That's a good point. But has Cordero earned his money so far? Yes, he has.
Sure, I'd rather pick up another Jeff Shaw off the scrap heap for less money who is just as effective, but you can't plan on being 100% successful there.

IMO, worrying about a Lincoln contract is missing the entire point. When you sign relievers to 2 million/year deals, it's a crapshoot. You'll get some Rhodes and Weathers that earn their money. You will get some guys like Lincoln that do not earn their money DESPITE looking like a good sign at the time. I don't remember anyone complaining on the thread when Lincoln was given his contract. Pitchers get hurt sometimes. It's part of the risk of building your team around pitching. Now signing a guy like Stanton or Milton that appears to be a horrible risk at the time is different all together.

Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

A contract similar to the one given to Phillips would be smart. Basically pay him a bit less each year over the next 5 years than he would have gotten normally, through arbitration and free agency. He gets financial security, and the Reds get stability and save a few million over those five years. The only risk on the Reds side is injury.

I would wait till after this off-season, as it looks like salaries will drop even lower, once the dust as settled. There is a decent chance that by the time the contract is up, salaries will rise again, and he will really be a bargain.

Just for the record. Dunn's extensions were always fine. Arroyo and Harang's would have been fine had the market not dropped and the going rate for a quality starting pitcher had not basically dropped in half. And even Griffey's would have been fine, had he been healthy.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

The simple truth is that unless the Reds increase payroll to around $90-$100m, the only chance they have of competing long-term is to keep churning the roster until they finally end up with a good group of young players all coming of age at the same time.

The issue isn't "Can the Reds afford Joey Votto?" because it's clear they can afford to carry a few (2 or 3, not the 6 or so they're currently sporting) big-time contracts and still meet their 60-70m payroll. The issue is "Can the Reds afford to miss out on the prospect haul that trading Votto would mean?" Competing on the cheap means sending top players out, bringing back a haul of prospects, and hoping that you turn 1 great player into 2 or 3 good, cheap players. The Reds have consistently missed this window of opportunity with their talent -- and the result is what you see now: a maxxed-out budget, multiple positions on the roster unaccounted for, and slow trickle of help from the farm.

That's the harsh reality of attempting to play ball with a payroll roughly 2/3 the size of what is necessary to compete.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

No way. If he had a knee or back injury that might make him miss months at a time, we'd all agree signing him (without a substantial discount) would be a bad idea. The guy obviously has some mental issues, and we need to be sure he can consistently play 160+ game seasons before we commit millions of dollars to him.

Don't get me wrong, he is a great kid, and I have all the sympathy in the world for him, but I think you need to look at him as pretty high-risk at this point.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

I think the window has really passed for the Reds unless Votto agrees to something pretty significantly under market value. Longoria is the best case example, but I imagine it's too late to do that with Votto. Longoria's deal basically mirrors how his salary would escalate normally, except it's all about 50% of what he probably would have earned if he took it one year at a time. Plus, each of his FA years are team options, so they can opt out pretty easily at relatively little cost if he gets seriously injured or flames out.

Each year closer you get to the guy's free agency and the more of a track record he's built, the bigger that % becomes. For Votto, I think you'd need to offer him something like 75% of fair market value based on reasonable or slightly aggressive production projections. And at the point, the savings you'd gain are probably not worth the risk you assume by guaranteeing him that money. You also should consider the availability of certain types of talent. Votto is an excellent player, but I'm not sure he's irreplaceable. Longoria is a potential HOF 3B in no small part because of his defensive talents. He'd be much harder to replace than Votto. Making a financial commitment when you already have him under control without one doesn't strike me as a particularly smart move for a franchise that needs as much payroll flexibility as possible.

Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

Re: Should the Reds sign Votto long term?

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I see your point. People are going to complain.

IMO, all those were good signings. Good value.

We can say a team like the Reds does not need a 12 million dollar closer. That's a good point. But has Cordero earned his money so far? Yes, he has.
Sure, I'd rather pick up another Jeff Shaw off the scrap heap for less money who is just as effective, but you can't plan on being 100% successful there.

IMO, worrying about a Lincoln contract is missing the entire point. When you sign relievers to 2 million/year deals, it's a crapshoot. You'll get some Rhodes and Weathers that earn their money. You will get some guys like Lincoln that do not earn their money DESPITE looking like a good sign at the time. I don't remember anyone complaining on the thread when Lincoln was given his contract. Pitchers get hurt sometimes. It's part of the risk of building your team around pitching. Now signing a guy like Stanton or Milton that appears to be a horrible risk at the time is different all together.

Correct. But it's almost getting to the point where we have to act like the Pirates and trade every expensive player in order to make ends meet. Granted we're not doing it all at once like they do but it's pretty much the same thing.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball